Case Law Details
Bali Nagwanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)
The main contention of the respondent State, respondent-BRPL and respondent- Union of India is this that the whole process for determination of compensation was based on fraud and criminal conspiracy, as out of numerous land oustees, only two of them, namely, Bali Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsariya have been benefited hugely and unjustly in the matter of grant of compensation and enhancement in compensation which is a windfall gain on their part. Whereas rest of the land oustees, who were similarly situated, have not been benefited in the similar fashion. Secondly, for the purpose of determining compensation in favour of Bali Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsariya, the land acquired from them was considered as urban land, whereas those lands are situated in rural area of village- Palli, which is a village under the Gram Panchayat Kumravand. The determination of compensation was further against the guidelines of 201718. In the F.I.R. lodged, it is alleged that the Patwari-Dharmnarayan Sahu, Revenue Inspector- Arjun Shrivastava and Tehsildar Deen Dayal Mandavi had conspired and manipulated the revenue records, by forging the entries for the benefit of appellant Bali Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsariya. There is allegation of involvement of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Siyaram Kurre, Clerk/In-charge of Sub-registrar Office- Koushal Thakur, who provided the calculation for compensation at the inflated rate, on which basis the total 2.69 hectares belonging to Bali Nagwanshi was compensated with the amount of Rs.70.6 crores, whereas according to guidelines for rural area, the total compensation should have been Rs.7.79 crores only and similarly because of this conspiracy and on the basis calculation at the inflated market rates, 1.04 hectare land acquired from Neelima Belsariya was determined to be compensated at Rs.25.19 crores, whereas according to the guidelines for rural area, the compensation would have been Rs.4.38 crores only. It is also alleged that the 25% additional compensation has been granted showing the land belonging to Bali Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsariya adjacent to the road and also of commercial importance, whereas similarly placed other land oustees have been compensated as per the rural criteria. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that the calculation of the interest at the rate of 12% per annum is illegal and against the provisions of the Act, 1989 and also the Act, 2013.
There are number of allegations present in the report of the Collector, which is the basis of the lodging of the F.I.R., which are directed against the assessment of compensation made in the land acquisition process. After passing of the award by a Competent Authority and the enhancement of award by the Commissioner and also deposit of the compensation amount by the BRPL, inquiry was made by the office of the Collector, the report was submitted and on that basis, the F.I.R. has been lodged. Consequent to this development, the petitioner- BRPL in W.P.C. No.3355/2019 has raised the ground, that the award passed by the competent authority is null and void with respect to the respondents Bali Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsariya and others, as the award was illegally determined against the provisions of law, against the guidelines for market price for the year 2017-18 and that the determination of the compensation in favour of the respective parties, who have been illegally benefited is the result of commission of offences regarding which, F.I.R. has been lodged.
The petitioner in W.P.(C.) No.3355/2019 has challenged the award by the competent authority dated 12.02.2018 on the ground of illegality. Same ground of illegality has been raised in challenging the award of the Commissioner dated 11.07.2019. The main allegation being both the awards had been the result of fraud committed by the concerned. In the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath (Supra), it was held by the Supreme Court that the judgment and decree obtained by playing fraud on the court was a nullity. In the case of Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (Supra), it was held that “Fraud” as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. It has been similarly held in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma and Others (Supra) and Rameshwar Vs. State of Haryana (Supra). Section 34 (2) of the Act, 1996 is relevant in this case, which is as follows:-
“Section 34(2) in THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
